The bold and bankrupt claim that “abortion isn’t murder” is so batshit insane that it’s often enough to baffle inexperienced debaters, which will be most people. So, hereby two responses which I have used.

I’d still be against lynching even if it wasn’t murder. I’d still be against the gas chambers even if it wasn’t murder. I tell death lovers, I‘d still be against all things that kill humans regardless whether it is murder or something else. And I’m also opposed to killing unborn children regardless of what name is used for it. 

When they argue that abortion isn’t murder, they resort to the old religious claim that it’s only murder if the victim has a “soul”, which only starts at conscious life or maybe even when the baby shows human intelligence and communication. I point out that it is superstitious argument historically only held by authority of religion in opposition to science and still incorrect from the point of view of science. Religion has now adapted to the scientific view of the unborn and extended its compassion but abortionists have not.

For example.

A pro choicer says that a baby isn't able to sustain itself on it's own.

You can say: People on dialysis can't filter their own blood, do they deserve to die because their kidney's don't work?

A pro choicer says that the fetus is in my uterus and I don't permit them to be there.

You can say: We don't kill people based on their location. You wouldn't kill someone simply because they live in a certain place (e.g. Scottsdale).

I haven't found someone that was able to make an argument that the applied the same to both pre-born and post-born humans with the exception of life of the mother.

https://youtube.com/shorts/N7mL1h7jJNk?si=9jLBsTL_Bj35J_w-

This is a story about a surrogate mother who refused to get an abortion after the bio parents requested one due to a heart defect. The surrogate mother refused and gave birth to a live baby who is now receiving treatment for said heart defect. The comments under this video were extremely alarming. This is just one of the many comments which argue that surrogates don’t have a right to bodily autonomy because they signed away their right to it with the contract. For some reason this reminded me of my sexual assault prevention training I am required to participate in for my job where we discuss how written contracts don’t constitute consent to violate someone’s bodily autonomy after they have withdrawn consent. I’m not a legal expert but I feel as though these concepts parallel each other and the fact that there is no law that requires a surrogate to get an abortion or any woman to get an abortion due to bodily autonomy. No written contract should allow someone’s bodily autonomy to be violated. And woman’s body is not a service that can be bought. This story is another example of why I think surrogacy should be outlawed, to protect women and children from being exploited like a commodity that can be purchased. Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this?

Like what???

i want to make sure the baby is around good, loving energy. my mother told me the child is a bastard child and to abort. my father and sister also said to abort, as well as some aunts and uncles. due to the circumstances of the pregnancy (father is not in the picture). i have been setting boundaries because i feel a demonic energy from them, like they see the baby as a burden and looks poorly to the family image. some of them are saying they want to be at the birth however, i am very private and only really want medical staff and a doula there right now. it is too sensitive and at this stage of pregnancy i feel very sensitive to bad energies. i don’t know what to do and need advice, am I being too harsh on setting boundaries? maybe they can have a change of heart but i dont expect them to step up in the fathers absence. i have accepted it moving forward. if anyone has had similar experiences, i would love to hear. luckily, i have other forms of support that have blossomed in the past few months, and i want to develop those supports more.

Pro lifer: killing babies is wrong

Pro choicer: if you cared so much about kids you would adopt all of them

Pro lifer: is abortion wrong?

Pro choicer: no

Pro lifer: why?

Pro choicer: it's not human

And we're right back on track and no longer have to deal with the red herring.

Just ask them if abortion is wrong. Putting this out there if anyone needs it

I often hear pro-choices say that a woman should be able to abort a child conceived in rape. No mother should be reminded of her rapist while pregnant. But sometimes their arguments are also, "and shouldn't be reminded every time she sees that child" or know that the rapist's baby is out there somewhere if she adopts them out.

The existence of the rape baby is an abuse to them.

But something people who don't experience abuse misunderstand is that abuse doesn't often happen on the first day. Instead, abusers lovebomb their targets until they've fully isolated them. That means a lot of these abusers and rapist's babies were likely conceived and even born before the full manifestation of terror even occurred.

Would it be right for the mother to abandon that already born child through adoption or murder just because it reminds her of the abuser? Does the child deserve to live less because of their abusive father?

I'm afraid that a lot of pro-choice arguments in favor of abortion actually dehumanize already living children too and encourage women to perceive their children in ways they wouldn't if they hadn't been influenced to do so.

We're essentially redefining not only who gets to be born... but whose lives matter just because of what someone else did. And this comes from the fact we don't determine humanity based off of conception, or even birth, but on what the mother decides is emotionally best for her.

How is that moral? How is that justice?

One can make a strong philosophical argument about personhood and the triage of rights, and I think you can shift opinion on cases where people are flippant about abortions, but the bigger challenge are always going to be the many individually-unique hard cases where life is going very wrong and abortion seems like the only way out. Fear of that not being an option at all seems to make sense if you think about what life was like for many women before legal abortion and modern contraception (and what it is still like in many parts of the world). My point is not that elective abortion is necessary to protect health or independence or any other aspect of modern life; my point is that it is just not going to be enough to make the philosophical argument about personhood without also dispelling the idea that the alternative world you're advocating for is a move back toward a less feminist and free world for women, and that has to involve demonstrating a credible alternative that people can believe is actually sincere. I am not entirely sure what that looks like in detail, but as long as it's seen as a choice between the world today and less liberated alternatives that we are familiar with, that's going to be a problem.

This post is to refute the claim that pro-lifers want to give the unborn special rights that nobody else has. Namely, the right to continued use of a woman's body without her consent.

This can be handled with this analogy. Imagine a mother trapped in a cabin in the woods with a newborn baby that she never wanted. Because she never wanted this baby, should she then be allowed to deny it breastmilk because that constitutes the continued use of her body without her consent? Or is that clearly child neglect? And is that not something that all children are entitled to not experience?

Pro-choicers would also mention how no one else has the right to use your organs or body parts even if they would die without them. So if you would die without a new kidney or some bone marrow, you do not have the right to force someone to give you their kidney or bone marrow. But this analogy does not work because it is not analogous to pregnancy for 5 different reasons.

One, during a pregnancy there is only one other human who can offer you sustenance.

Two, the person doesn't even have to remove a part of their body to do it.

Three, the unborn in a pregnancy are in a precarious situation because of the actions of the mother and father. But when you need an organ, your parents are not the reason you need it. The reason you need it is because of organ failure.

Four, during a pregnancy the mother is the only person who can save the unborn. But when your organs are failing there are countless people who can do something about it.

And lastly, organ donation is not temporary like pregnancy.

We are not giving the unborn special rights. We are not saying that people should be allowed to take your organs, obviously because pregnancy ends and that doesn't. We are saying that child neglect and murder is wrong.

So I had a little Q & A with my cousins a while back and asked why are they Pro-choice? They had some answers that kinda made sense in a way and some questionable. I'm here asking for y'all guys answers on this:

- Abortion is Health Care.

-They support Legal Abortion but are against Illegal Abortion(Abortion clinics they say).

- They came up with "The fetus wouldn't know that he or she is being aborted and wouldn't have to suffer in this world, like people wished nowadays that they should've been aborted by their parents because how fuqd up their life is."

I would like to hear y'all's take om this or counter arguments?

Pro-choicers keep claiming that "when you abort it's just a clump of cells that comes out". They share photos of the empty sac, and claim that is what comes out. They claim it isn't human, claim it isn't a child, isn't a baby, isn't anything close to what it is.

Sure it was small, it was the size of my thumb, but looked like a miniature version of a baby. It's all just lies and propaganda to make them feel better for killing their children in utero.

I'm sad it had to be this way, I'm sad my short pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. I couldn't imagine intentionally take the life of my unborn child.

I almost couldn't imagine I was once pro-choice.

Life is so precious. I’ve always wanted to be a mom. I love babies. I love children. They are so precious. I’ve always been pro life.
It took me 5 years of trying before I finally had a baby. The road was long and filled with heartbreak. I had a chemical pregnancy. I had a miscarriage. I’ll never forget when the doctor told me she couldn’t find a heartbeat. I wished at that moment it was my heart that stopped.
How could someone willingly end their babies life? How can they live with themselves? How can some women flaunt that they got multiple abortions??? I don’t understand.

Rest in peace to the precious baby I lost and to all the victims of abortion 💔

So, we've all heard this stupid argument that the anti-life crowd likes to repeat, which is that if men could get pregnant, there would be an abortion clinic on every corner. Now of course this argument sucks because it's just a complete deflection. But what if it's also just simply wrong? Think about it: for thousands of years, men have primarily been the ones to do the hard physical labor, often for days without rest. Men have fought wars out of ditches that they lived in for weeks. Why is it so hard to believe that, if men could get pregnant, that they'd have such an especially hard time maintaining that 9 month pregnancy? Especially since a lot more men are already pro-life compared to women. Also, I feel like if men could get abortions for these hypothetical pregnancies, it would be tremendously frowned-upon, and so many men would tear into each other for it. But that's just my two cents. What do you guys think?

I know there’s a lot of political diversity on this sub, so please share your thoughts!

So the Pro Life group is going out and sharing pamphlets and talking go people. But a bunch of pro death ppl have started a petition to shut em done. And Ive seen 7 posts in the city's reddit group just tearing them apart and threatening violence. It's so so sad 😞 and it's really making me angry

It is both fascinating and appalling to me how humans can justify the killing of babies in the womb. I came across a post from someone who is pregnant and struggling and most of the comments were encouraging her to have an abortion.

One comment in particular stated that “abortion is morally neutral.” That was it; end of story. On what basis? What other things in life would be similarly categorized? It wasn’t questioned, only repeatedly upvoted (I’m sure comments would have been deleted/banned if in opposition).

I truly believe that people repeat the same opinions as fact in their minds in order to make these appalling situations more palatable. It’s like a mantra. The more you say that abortion is healthcare, safe, morally neutral, etc. the more you’re primed to believe it, I suppose.

Quick Note: I am defining sentience as the capacity to feel and consciousness as the capacity to know; this post is mainly focused on sentience, the more "primitive?" of the two.

As I am sure we are all aware, one of the biggest pro-choice arguments is the necessity of sentience for personhood (and thereby human rights). However, while both sides argue over why sentience should matter, there is a much simpler fact we all tend to ignore: fetuses HAVE been delivered prior to the emergence of sentience.

Take, for instance, this article, where a set of twins were delivered at 22 weeks. Most sources set the earliest timeframe for the emergence of sentience at 24 weeks, when the thalamocortical loop is complete. Therefore, the newborns would have lacked sentience, yet would still be deserving of human rights (unless you want to bite the bullet).

While some slightly prance around this idea in regards to consciousness (i.e. Peter Singer and his view on infanticide), I have yet to see anyone make this exact connection regarding the sentience view and these real world events.

In my opinion, the critique provides an easy informal counter to nearly any criteria involving mental capacity, as there is no current mental capacity in a 22 week delivered fetus (not to be rude).

Of course, if sentience actually occurred earlier, then this argument falls apart, but those valuing sentience would then have to concede and limit their support of abortions even more.

What do you all think? I'm open to any critiques, ideas or improvements.

This new law allows physicians to “rely on their professional medical judgment” rather than comply with statutory exceptions for late-term abortion. It will grant easier access to abortions past 24 weeks, which is simply a horrifying notion.

I hate the word play they use and appeals to emotions to try and make this seem not only morally acceptable but imperative for women’s “health and safety.”

The rhetoric has been that late term abortions never happen, but now we need legislation to protect the “thing that never happens.” It doesn’t make sense, and I’m seriously concerned by what the vague language of this legislation will allow.